Creative Industry and Cultural Policy in Asia Reconsidered
Fung presents a general mapping of the global creative industries, with a critique of a nation-driven cultural policy as a departure, particularly in Asia. The chapter argues that, despite operating more or less on a free-market economy, the non-Asian cul
- PDF / 212,750 Bytes
- 17 Pages / 419.527 x 595.276 pts Page_size
- 49 Downloads / 188 Views
Creative Industry and Cultural Policy in Asia Reconsidered Anthony Fung
This chapter presents a general mapping of the global creative industries. With a critique of a nation-driven cultural policy as a departure, particularly in Asia, I argue that, despite operating more or less on a free-market economy, the non-Asian cultural industries are equally protected by a neo-liberal global policy with the formation of collaborative consortiums or communities that project and mold their creative industries in certain directions. In other words, either in the politically constrained Asian context or a liberal-capitalist context, creative industries, nowadays, when extending globally, are dictated to by various politico-economic forces. The latter might in fact steer the creative industries away from their original aims— incubating creative talent and encouraging human creativity that creative labor want to achieve—and cultural industry becomes an instrument internally for nationalism and externally for national branding. Despite this, we A. Fung (*) School of Journalism and Communication, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong Beijing Normal University, China Jinan University, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2016 A. Fung (ed.), Global Game Industries and Cultural Policy, Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-40760-9_2
15
16
A. FUNG
can see there are cases in which some creative industries can work relatively autonomous outside these kinds of hegemonic controls.
THE UNCRITICALNESS
OF
CULTURAL POLICY
In the past decade cultural policy has emerged as a mature field of study, and above all, a legitimate approach to cultural or creative industries. From a cultural-studies point of view, the subjectivity of the agency it emphasizes always stands against the framework of cultural policy. From the perspective of political economy, we are equally vigilant of the dominant ideological control through any legal rhetoric and formal regulatory means. Yet, quite surprising, on these culture producing agencies, the perspective of cultural studies and political economy coalesce, rather uncritically, into one framework of so-called cultural policy. The use of cultural policy as a departure to examine cultural industry seemingly renders the potent arguments of various critical theories irrelevant. The adoption of, for instance, a stateregulated framework or infrastructure with new sets of ambiguous or prevaricating language camouflages the commanding power of the state to dictate culture and evades a point at issue. Few studies problematize a government- or a semi-official bodies-driven cultural industry. Most of the cultural policy studies are non-Asian focus. Lewis and Miller (2003a) suggest the concentration of cultural policy studies in Anglo-Saxon nations in North America, Britain and Australia is because of their prominent role in “commercial and governmental cultural traditions” (p. 8). Thus North America, Britain and Australia become the typical cases of examinin
Data Loading...
